Chemtrails?

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The fact that your last statement wasn't a question. And that I quoted it, may have indicated to you that the comment after wasn't directed at you, but BobK. Me, putting his name in there also, ought to have given the game away. Please bear in mind that while you may only be posting to me. I, however, am responding to more than one. A little bit of lee-way wouldn't go amiss.

Except for the fact that in relation to the comment was my quote and thus if you wanted to direct something at Bobk why not use his own post and not mine. It gave it way sure, but there was still no reason to do it. And if I'm posting to someone else I will do it properly.

Empirical evidence

(also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

Yes but it is done by scientific means all of which prior to my post you haven't done. So looking it up and then using the idea out of context because you really don't know how it works isn't going to save you.

 

[Imari]

Now I know that you all want me to admit that I know what is going on. I don't.

I'm not sure anyone wants your brand of truth. I know I'd settle for you not raising conspiracy theories to the level of science.

I did like how you managed to define chemtrails in terms so broad that they couldn't not exist though. That was cute.

 

[Dotini]

There is currently an ENORMOUS hue and cry - difficult to ignore - going on about the problems of climate change. These wails of fear and warning are issuing not just from self-serving politicians but also from many but not all scientists, even those trained in meteorology. But is the real world of industry and economics taking ANY of this seriously? No. Production of coal and methane continues to skyrocket. Chinese and other formerly impoverished peoples want to eat beef, and consume energy intensive goods and services.

It is very plain that the the global fleet of commercial aircraft do a very good job of making contrails at certain altitudes and weather conditions. These contrails are often seen seen to linger and merge, forming cloud cover. Cloud cover is an excellent thing for promoting cooling of the surface, at least during daylight hours.

So how can we have our cake and eat it too?

Although we agree chemtrails demonstrably do not currently exist, it seems like they would be a very good idea if the physics of cloud formation by contrail could be leveraged by engineering contrails to form at lower altitudes, to linger longer and merge more readily.

In short, chemtrails could be the poor mans way of fighting climate change, and probably ought to be researched and implemented. Even if chemtrails don't exist, they should exist. There seems to be a sound reason for them.

So, in a sky full of of clear air, what is the physical process by which hydrogen and oxygen come together to form clouds? The answer is complex, but it always involves a nucleating agent. A microscopic dust particle works pretty well, I would think, but what else?

We may (or may not) have some physicists and educated amateurs among us who can and will elaborate on the real dynamics of cloud formation.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Dotini But climate and weather manipulation techniques exist and have existed for some time in the primary form of cloud seeding and other methods. The problem is playing with nature isn't always the greatest idea especially when we don't know the reactions that could be far worse then the benefits that may seem to be with no consequence.

When things like this supposedly happened: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/30/sillyseason.physicalsciences then you have to question is it beneficial.

 

[BobK]

So I've posed to you two questions and I hope you answer them rather than beat around the bush.

Tell you what BobK, while you having a play with definitions. Figure out what you think it is and then write it down on a piece of paper.

Lolwut? I hope you're not attributing that quote to me.

Chem-trail. My definition. Visible trail resembling a contrail, which contains some additive other than spent fuel. Exhausted from a plane.

This should also include something along the lines of "for purposes unrelated to propelling the aircraft". Even so, this would still include the trails left by crop dusters, skywriters, and aerial firefighters. It would leave out paratroops and skydivers, since they look nothing like contrails.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff Pre-judging evidence by reputation is hardly disputing the evidence merely calling into question the character of the source. So did you watch it or just decide that it wasn't your brand of information.

The nature of the source is most certainly a valid point to raise, however if you actually read what I have written the point is that the entire article is based around a document that is anonymously written and not peer reviewed, yet is treated as if its fact, and even claimed as a scientific study.

Its not evidence at all, it doesn't even meet the most basic standards to be considered scientific and as such doesn't support the claims it makes and makes any article based around it to be inherently flawed.

If this is the question to which you are referring then if I can quote it then so could you. Then the answer is, of course I know what the apparatus is for.

Then why did you fail to point out that it doesn't support a use as a high level slow dispersion system and that it would require modification to be used in that way (if its even possible)?

You may not have said that it is not possible to disperse chemicals at a high level but there are people who used the argument that it wouldn't be possible to do it.

The patent details clearly show its not even remotely designed to act in a manner that would allow the normal claim of chem trail delivery to be carried out, Its not that people are saying x or y or z about that. Its the simple fact that is not evidence to support a claim of a chem-trail delivery system at all.

In fact you mentioned evergreen international earlier in the thread.

And?

I'm not saying that they are using this technology to do it. Only that it would be entirely possible.

Citation required.

Now I know that you all want me to admit that I know what is going on. I don't. I think some of you in here don't have the best interests of discussion, debate and investigation at heart. But that's okay. There are some in here who may want to look beyond their limited imaginations and possibly see what the future may hold, if they look at what is happening now, and change it to a new future.



If you watch this video, then I hope you find it interesting. And I hope it will move you, to pay a bit more attention to the world around you.

I can't watch it at the moment, but I will. However if it moves me or not is irrelevant. It either contains evidence to support a claim of chem-trails or it doesn't.

@Enemem OK - I've watched most of that and quite frankly its again not evidence or proof, its speculation from a man who is not a Meterologist (as the video title claims), he's an ex TV weatherman who once blamed Hurricane Katrina on the Yakuza. This is not evidence.

 

[Enemem]

Lolwut? I hope you're not attributing that quote to me.

No.

On an extremely funny coincidence I found this video. You can watch it all, if you want but remember that bit onnthe thread about the firefighting plane and Evergreen. Well go to the 42minute and listen for 5 minutes. lol.



The irony.

 

[Scaff]

No.

On an extremely funny coincidence I found this video. You can watch it all, if you want but remember that bit onnthe thread about the firefighting plane and Evergreen. Well go to the 42minute and listen for 5 minutes. lol.


The irony.

And?

Lets first of all ignore that fact that thinking that aerial drops 'just puts fires out' is utter and complete nonsense and wonder why this Chem-trail advocate video (in that section at least) doesn't start banging on about using that plane and delivery method to produce Chem-trails?

Or have I missed some special bit in the latest round of nonsense and speculation dressed up as 'evidence'?

Oh and I've just checked, the video states in its title that Mark McCadlish is an "aviation expert", a claim even his own website doesn't back up. He spent four years (at most - early 1970's to 1974) in the USAF as an electrical technician, his work involving (in his own words)....

"....performed repairs on and bore-sighted the infrared and radar-based MA-1 and ASQ-25 weapons control systems of the F-106 Delta Dart with the 318th Fighter Interceptor Squadron."

....his freelance work for the aerospace industry from that point on involved artwork (which is what he is actually trained as) before he decided in the mid '80s that aliens were behind the USAF's tech. That does not make someone an aviation expect by any means.

http://www.markmccandlish.com/Default.aspx?PageContentID=5

 

[Zenith]

I've got a question.

What about people who visit countries that don't have high airliner traffic? I know people who will spend years at a time in places like Africa and South America. There are hardly any airliners in places like Kenya, yet nobody I know that's been there has woken up from their mind control drugs.

Wouldn't the lack of evil mind controlling chemtrails cause a complete change in their mental state? I haven't seen anyone come back from a Peace Corps trip with a completely altered brain chemistry...

And before anyone says that chemtrails chemicals would have mind controlling effects longer than any trip, wouldn't that make spraying them out the back of every jet liner complete overkill?

Or maybe this entire thread is completely idiotic and believing on chemtrails makes you a certified moron...

 

[Enemem]

l
Or maybe this entire thread is completely idiotic and believing on chemtrails makes you a certified moron...

Very good. Shilling for your thoughts ?

Oh and I've just checked, the video states in its title that Mark McCadlish is an "aviation expert", a claim even his own website doesn't back up. He spent four years (at most - early 1970's to 1974) in the USAF as an electrical technician, his work involving (in his own words)....

So whilst I merely posted the second video for a laugh, which I mentioned in my post. You decided to attack it anyway. Force of habit?

Managed to explain the weird weather yet, or haven't you taken the course on debunking that yet.

@Both of you. Please stop using ad hominem arguments, they're not big and they're not clever and they wrong.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Enemem Thanks for proving me right that your emotions are out on your sleeve and that is what you're using for this entire discussion on your end, while the rest of us don't seem to take this personal. He didn't attack you and he's actually trying to get you to understand that your method of thinking isn't one that fosters any viable way of finding truth. Running around and crying wolf without proof of a wolf but a hunch isn't going to get the village people to take you seriously in any capacity. He's giving you the tools in a sense so you can argue better and you seem to think this is back on the playground and you're getting picked on.

IT's a forum, you posted this drivel and somehow think that there wouldn't be people that want you to answer for where you're getting these ideas and "questions from"? You might want to visit the GT6 subforum and see how well that works with over zealous fans or any other subforum for that matter where peoples wants out weigh their logic.

 

[Enemem]

@Enemem Thanks for proving me right that your emotions are out on your sleeve and that is what you're using for this entire discussion on your end, while the rest of us don't seem to take this personal. He didn't attack you and he's actually trying to get you to understand that your method of thinking isn't one that fosters any viable way of finding truth. Running around and crying wolf without proof of a wolf but a hunch isn't going to get the village people to take you seriously in any capacity. He's giving you the tools in a sense so you can argue better and you seem to think this is back on the playground and you're getting picked on.

IT's a forum, you posted this drivel and somehow think that there wouldn't be people that want you to answer for where you're getting these ideas and "questions from"? You might want to visit the GT6 subforum and see how well that works with over zealous fans or any other subforum for that matter where peoples wants out weight their logic.

Oh and I've just checked, the video states in its title that Mark McCadlish is an "aviation expert", a claim even his own website doesn't back up. He spent four years (at most - early 1970's to 1974) in the USAF as an electrical technician, his work involving (in his own words)....

....his freelance work for the aerospace industry from that point on involved artwork (which is what he is actually trained as) before he decided in the mid '80s that aliens were behind the USAF's tech. That does not make someone an aviation expect by any means.

http://www.markmccandlish.com/Default.aspx?PageContentID=5

Looks like a attack to me. So is he defending him or making no judgement?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Looks like a attack to me. So is he defending him or making no judgement?

No it doesn't it looks like he's getting the facts right that you didn't check on and your now upset that you've had your argument flipped upside down due to an unreliable source. So now you want to claim attack and he even goes out of his way to show you the reality and you rather be in a warped state? And you have the nerve to claim this BS attack by him because he is using logic and actually investigating what you just take for certain?

 

[Enemem]

No it doesn't it looks like he's getting the facts right that you didn't check on and your now upset that you've had your argument flipped upside down due to an unreliable source. So now you want to claim attack and he even goes out of his way to show you the reality and you rather be in a warped state? And you have the nerve to claim this BS attack by him because he is using logic and actually investigating what you just take for certain?

So whilst I merely posted the second video for a laugh, which I mentioned in my post.

An unreliable source, who? Mark? Are you being deliberately slow. Just read my quote from just above. You're out.


Still haven't watched this though, have you? Either you have and can't argue or you haven't watched it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

He's investigated nothing, he's provided no evidence. You are even worse. You're out. I'm not as upset as you'll be when the MSM finally get the balls to write about this stuff.

Still haven't watched this though, have you? Either you have and can't argue or you haven't watched it.

No I didn't watch it because I just wrapped up finals today and hadn't had time. Because I'm actually out there trying to learn about scientific endeavors. Be in the aero industry and learn all the stuff I've wanted to know since a kid but do so in a logical manner. So no, I'm sorry I didn't take an hour of my studies to watch a video that probably doesn't even prove your argument due to the defacto reasoning that everything else you've shared hasn't done so prior as well.

Also explain how he debunked your source then? How is that not investigating? How is providing a link that verifies what he said not a source? I mean I've spent let me see 4-5 years in college having to write various papers for classes and sourcing stuff, and that is a source though in a very informal way since it's a forum and not a thesis paper.

 

[Enemem]

Also explain how he debunked your source then? How is that not investigating?

Because it's like saying that because the government lied once then they have a poor track record so cannot be trusted. Do you agree with that line of argument or do you still not see what I talking about? It's not an argument , it's a fallacy.

And for the third time in three posts ---- > You also don't get it yet that the second video was merely amusing, not evidence, yet you continue to haarp on about it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Because it's like saying that because the government lied once then they have a poor track record so cannot be trusted. Do you agree with that line of argument or do you still not see what I talking about?

And for the thrid time in three posts ---- > You also don't get it yet that the second video was merely amusing, not evidence.

I never claimed it was evidence you re-established to @Scaff that the video was for humorous purposes not me, I'm talking about all the other stuff that was posted by your or by others that you agreed with. That stuff wasn't evidence.

Problem is you do have a track record on here that is consistent with not being able to back up arguments, and thus an automatic benefit of the doubt can be established through a constant history. Gov't is more than one people and certain groups in it will lie more than others thus not consistent like you.

 

[Scaff]

So whilst I merely posted the second video for a laugh, which I mentioned in my post. You decided to attack it anyway. Force of habit?

I pointed out the issues with the material provided, that it doesn't (when it had the opportunity) agree with a point you made (and have yet to address - but back to that in a minute) and also pointed out a very inaccurate and misleading claim it made as to the qualifications of the source.

If you actually bothered to fact check your own source material I would not have to do it for you, so I suggest in future you actually do so before posting.

Managed to explain the weird weather yet, or haven't you taken the course on debunking that yet.

Plenty of source material that is from qualified individuals and has been peer reviewed is available, we even have an entire thread dedicated to it. This is not that thread and simply because you are unable to accept that doesn't then give you a mandate to post nonsense in place of actual scientific data and research.

@Both of you. Please stop using ad hominem arguments, they're not big and they're not clever and they wrong.

Your not a member of staff, continue to try and act like one and you will be shown the door. If you believe the AUP has been broken then use the report button.

Looks like a attack to me. So is he defending him or making no judgement?

I'm doing the fact checking that you seem to be incapable or unwilling to do, if you don't like that in future I suggest that you do it yourself before posting material up.


Now you made this factual claim a while ago......

I'm not saying that they are using this technology to do it. Only that it would be entirely possible.

....and I asked you to provide proof to back it up. Please ensure you do so unless you believe the AUP doesn't apply to posts you make (and it most certainly does).

 

[BobK]

@Both of you. Please stop using ad hominem arguments, they're not big and they're not clever and they wrong.

You really, really, really need to stop using them yourself. It just underscores your own hypocrisy.

 

[Zenith]

@Enemem

So I guess you're not going to answer my question. Boy, that was easy.

 

[Lizard]

@Enemem

So I guess you're not going to answer my question. Boy, that was easy.

Don't worry he never answered mine so I just gave up.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Still haven't watched this though, have you? Either you have and can't argue or you haven't watched it.

Okay, I'm ten minutes in and I might to watch all of this because I'm open minded. Would it surprise me to find that some governments have undertaken experiments with the public as unwitting subjects? No, we know it's happened, and there's proper documentary evidence of it in this thread. So I'm prepared to be convinced, and that will take solid evidence or hypotheses based on proper observation.

My first comment about this video is that the speaker's credibility is tested by his observation that some planes leave contrails while others in a similar position do not and his immediate assessment of this as evidence. What the foggins? Is he really a meteorologist? No, it turns out he was a weather presenter, not a meteorologist.

I checked that immediately because it's perfectly normal that some planes leave a contrail while others don't, it can depend on engine type, specific thermocline at the moment of passing, engine condition, all kinds of things. A meteorologist would know that immediately.

@Emenem, would you say that Scott Stevens (former TV weather presenter turned conspiracy theorist) has established enough credibility for us to listen to an hour of his science? Genuine question, but please give the reason for your answer

 

[Dotini]

Do jet engines have air/fuel mixture ratio control settings available from the cockpit? I would doubt it.

But if they did, it might be possible to run rich enough to leave an enhanced trail of unburned hydrocarbons (soot particles) in the contrail, and in so doing, leave more nucleating particles around which water molecules would coalesce.

 

[Azuremen]

Do jet engines have air/fuel mixture ratio control settings available from the cockpit? I would doubt it.

Pretty sure you can control how lean the engines run in most aircraft, but I suspect @Keef can clarify.

 

[Venom800tt]

Nope, jet engines lack mixture controls. Fuel control is automatic, either via mechanical or electronic means. Piston engines generally do have mixture controls, at least older carburated ones.

 

[Enemem]

My first comment about this video is that the speaker's credibility is tested by his observation that some planes leave contrails while others in a similar position do not and his immediate assessment of this as evidence. What the foggins? Is he really a meteorologist? No, it turns out he was a weather presenter, not a meteorologist.

I checked that immediately because it's perfectly normal that some planes leave a contrail while others don't, it can depend on engine type, specific thermocline at the moment of passing, engine condition, all kinds of things. A meteorologist would know that immediately.

I agree with your thoughts about contrails not being chemtrails because of their appearance.

@Emenem, would you say that Scott Stevens (former TV weather presenter turned conspiracy theorist) has established enough credibility for us to listen to an hour of his science? Genuine question, but please give the reason for your answer

Yes. And I'll tell you why. Whilst he may not have qualified as a meteorologist, he did train to be one, just because I'm not a qualified golf-pro doesn't mean I don't know about golf. There are plenty of the world's greatest golf teachers who are world reknowned in their fields, who don't have PGA qualifications. Logic would therefore tell you that the fact that he isn't a qualified meteorologist, does not invalidate his claims. (By the same token it doesn't mean he knows knows what he's talking about).

Did you say conspiracy theorist or whistleblower? Tomarto or Tomayto.

But the upshot is, that he will provide evidence that you may find compelling, and since you've probably spent more than a hour on this thread then it's not like you have something better do do. (Don't take that as a insult, I've got plenty of time too).

 

[Scaff]

Yes. And I'll tell you why. Whilst he may not have qualified as a meteorologist, he did train to be one, just because I'm not a qualified golf-pro doesn't mean I don't know about golf. There are plenty of the world's greatest golf teachers who are world reknowned in their fields, who don't have PGA qualifications. Logic would therefore tell you that the fact that he isn't a qualified meteorologist, does not invalidate his claims. (By the same token it doesn't mean he knows knows what he's talking about).

Did you say conspiracy theorist or whistleblower? Tomarto or Tomayto.

But the upshot is, that he will provide evidence that you may find compelling, and since you've probably spent more than a hour on this thread then it's not like you have something better do do. (Don't take that as a insult, I've got plenty of time too).

And when qualified Meteorologists disagree with his claims repeatedly?

What about his claim that Hurricanes Katrina and Ivan were caused by the Yakuza with the help of a cold war Russian technology (that doesn't exist and no one has ever shown to exist)?

His 'evidence' is conjecture and opinion dressed up as fact, its unsupported, its not peer reviewed and as a result doesn't meet the scientific standard and results in t being pretty much worthless. If it was worth a damn it would have been peer reviewed and published.

I would also like you to address the factual claim you made that I have now asked you twice to back up and you keep ignoring. Either back it up or retract it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Whilst he may not have qualified as a meteorologist, he did train to be one, just because I'm not a qualified golf-pro doesn't mean I don't know about golf. There are plenty of the world's greatest golf teachers who are world reknowned in their fields, who don't have PGA qualifications. Logic would therefore tell you that the fact that he isn't a qualified meteorologist, does not invalidate his claims. (By the same token it doesn't mean he knows knows what he's talking about).

I'd say that without the qualification he's unqualified, because that's true. He didn't complete a Bachelor's degree as he left during the 2nd year to work at a TV station.

In the beginning of the video he doesn't seem to understand why, out of two planes in the same piece of sky, only one might leave a contrail. That suggests a lack of meteorological knowledge and adds to my overall feeling that to represent him as an "expert" on anything other than the history of the conspiracy theory itself is ludicrous.

 

[Enemem]

Looking at the evidence is different to not looking at the evidence. Choosing to not look at the evidence because you don't trust the messenger is idiocy.

I would also like you to address the factual claim you made that I have now asked you twice to back up and you keep ignoring. Either back it up or retract it.

You quote the factual claim that you want me to either back-up or retract then I will do just that.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/goto/post?id=9641124#post-9641124

@Both of you. Please stop using ad hominem arguments, they're not big and they're not clever and they wrong.

You really, really, really need to stop using them yourself. It just underscores your own hypocrisy.

@BobK --> Who did I disagree with on the basis of the person who said it? And please quote me. Any question with regard to anything I am alledged to have said, will only be replied to if the person quotes me.

 

[Exorcet]

Still haven't watched this though, have you? Either you have and can't argue or you haven't watched it.

I did watch the videos but they left me with not much to say. They're that bad. I think in this one he was surprised to see a turboprop leaving a chemtrail and that he'd never seen such a thing before. He has zero aviation knowledge then if that's the case because the difference between a turbofan (most jet airliners) and a turboprop is basically how big the propeller is. They use the same combustion and exhaust process.

Then he talked about sharp corners in the weather. If that's only possible with whether modifation, we've answered if we're alone in the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn's_hexagon

There was also no evidence for anything. Especially the orgone or whatever it's called.